proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

Until you can show him to me, you have no god, only empty claims. Anybody can write anything and anyone can interpret it however they want. Just cut to the chase and provide your god.

Then Ill ask you something that should be simple. Show me the common ancestor that split to become man and chimp.

Cant show you God until you understand the things made....and that my friend is a long ways off. But have patience, it is coming. Romans 1:20

 

[tas8831]

Then Ill ask you something that should be simple. Show me the common ancestor that split to become man and chimp.

Show us the Created Kind that gave rise to the cheetah, and explain how it happened and support your explanation with empirical evidence.

Maybe even show us which allies took part in the subKindiation event.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You must be confused, I never said such a thing.

So then you are saying no data as correlated in an attempt to prove evolution? You never said it true, but then you never thought someone would call you out on it, because you didnt realize your own response was just as bad for you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Show us the Created Kind that gave rise to the cheetah, and explain how it happened and support your explanation with empirical evidence.

Maybe even show us which allies took part in the subKindiation event.

How could I do that any more than you can give me any common ancestor on any evolutionary tree?

You dont even know where most of the big cats come from, they just appear in the record suddenly.

Ancient Fossil Suggests Origin of Cheetahs

"The skull was discovered in Gansu Province, China, and represents a new cheetah species, now dubbed Acinonyx kurteni,"


Ahhh, but then we find the PR hype of new species is based on no information at all, but may be premature.

"Tom Rothwell of the Paris Hill Cat Hospital in New York, a specialist on ancient cats and dogs, agrees that the new skull is a "major find," though he cautions that it's difficult to declare it a new species. "There just is not enough data available from other specimens to be declaring this wonderful specimen a new and unique species," said Rothwell, who is a paleontologist and veterinarian."

Hey but why be cautious and do a thorough research, Darwin didnt need to. Declare everything a new species, and maybe, just perhaps, you all might be able to convince yourselves speciation happens.

Seems to me there existed once several subspecies in the Cheetah Kind, and that only one survived to the present day. But then that's why variability is programmed into those genes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

but how does a variant of a gene come to be?

By copying WHAT ALREADY EXISTS into a new format. Thats why its called a variant, because it already existed in a similar format. And no, copying something into a new format is not a mutation, even if you all like to define any change to the genome a mutation. A gene becoming dominant or recessive is change, but not mutation. Mutation is damage to a gene, error.

"Mutations result from errors during DNA replication or other types of damage to DNA,"

And as I have said before, the quadrillionth error may end up being beneficial. But most end up like this.

birth defects - Google Search

Ohh, that's right, we wouldnt want to include those in the same sentence as mutation. My bad.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Show us the Created Kind that gave rise to the cheetah, and explain how it happened and support your explanation with empirical evidence.

Maybe even show us which allies took part in the subKindiation event.

Not even one common ancestor can you provide for any evolutionary split? Surely with all the evidence you have you can show one of these common ancestors?

On the other hand I can show you as many fossils of the same creature from the first one found to the last one found that remain the same. And I can show you that the only time you have observed changes in the form of creatures was when they mated with a different subspecies within that species. That is if you could follow your own scientific definitions. But asking an evolutionist to follow a scientific definition is impossible.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Maybe you can articulate what you think your point is?

If you broke your arm, and an orthopedic surgeon recommended surgery, or you would lose the arm, what would you think if someone else, with zero knowledge of orthopedics, told you that the orthopedist didn't know what he was talking about, and to ignore him? Get it?

Of maybe you can articulate on your inability to get my point? But I think I get it, it's your choice to not see it, and not a problem with my point at all.

Funny you should choose that analogy.

Due to a fairly sever bout with polio as a child, I was kind of a pin cushion for what were probably well meaning, experimenting orthopedic surgeons back in the late 50's and 60's. When I got older and learned a bit about mechanics, I realized I would have been much better of with the surgeon being guided by Joe six pack mechanic, who actually thought about what they were doing before they made the cuts.

Also, you are talking experts and self proclaimed experts. If you want to assume everyone in the field knows what they are doing, have at it...I don't, and far from it.

I don't know if they wen to the moon or not, but there are a lot of non experts questioning it, and well they should. But, in your world, they should just sit back and believe the experts. That, at least, should drive my point home, if not...well, I tried.

 

[HitchSlap]

...well, I tried.

If you say so.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I just love it when some self-righteous, but uninformed 'Christian' tries to 'tsk tsk' and condescend to someone else about something like this, as if they actually understand even their own bible...


Leviticus 11:13-19New International Version (NIV)

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."

your point? Seriousely, I have no idea why you are pointing that out...did you confuse mine with another post?

I won

I just love it when some self-righteous, but uninformed 'Christian' tries to 'tsk tsk' and condescend to someone else about something like this, as if they actually understand even their own bible...


Leviticus 11:13-19New International Version (NIV)

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."



Oh, the sweet demolition of a condescending bible 'expert' who apparently does not even know the bible...

Apology accepted (since I know i would never get a real one - internet Christian creationists are like that, I have found).

Oh my, lol.

And your point? Seriously, I have no idea why you are telling me that...did you confuse one of my posts with someone else?

I won't report you but I would ask you can the insults for two reasons. They show a certain desperation due to lack of defense, and someone might report you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you say so.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh, the irony of the egotist's blindness...


Leviticus 11:13-19New International Version (NIV)

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."


Let the excuses and dodges and equivocations and diversions begin!

LOL!

Again, I'm at a loss why you are telling me all this?

What do you think you're proving?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then perhaps you could explain since you understand all the complexities, why spiders are the same species because they interbreed, but finches are not?

I'd need to know the specific spiders you are referring to in order to assess the exact reason, but there are a variety of reasons that are possible, and I'll list a few:
1. Though the offspring between the spiders, as well as between the birds, are fertile, the sexual selection common to birds renders their hybrids genetic dead ends (they don't get to mate, even though they physically could), and this doesn't apply to the spiders (these particular spiders aren't choosy, so the hybrids of spiders aren't genetic dead ends).

2. The spiders hybridize a lot more frequently than the birds do. If hybridization events are infrequent and rare, they won't have much impact on genetic drift, and thus the two populations genetically are practically indistinguishable from populations that never hybridize.

3. The bird hybrids have noticeably reduced fertility, and the spider hybrids don't. That is, only the females of the cross are fertile, etc.

4. If it's more than 2 finch species we are talking about, the "species A, species B, and species C" situation may apply. That is, even though hybridization between various species is common, they can't all interbreed with each other, so they can't all be considered the same species. A species population can't have a portion of it incapable of breeding with another portion.

5. The first generation of bird hybrids are fertile, but inevitably give rise to infertile lineages. This is why all the species in the genus Nepenthes aren't considered to be the same species, even though they all are capable of interbreeding, most produce natural hybrids, and nearly all first generation crosses are fertile (the only first generation cross I know of that isn't fertile is N. ventricosa X N. gracilis). Basically, once there are 4 or more different species in the cross, the hybrid plant gets a huge drop in fertility, and I don't know of any crosses with more than 6 consecutive different species that are fertile at all (back-crossing with the one of the original species parents can increase how many generations remain fertile).

These are just some of the possible reasons why the finches aren't considered to be the same species, yet the spiders are.

No its not the best you can do, If A breeds with B and B breeds with C but you havent observed C breed with A, you dont name them separate species. They are the same exact species. Until you find valid scientific data to confirm they are not. I am waiting for your valid scientific reason?

-_- I literally gave the "species A, B, and C" example straight out of a college biology textbook. That is, officially, if species A and C don't breed, even if both interbreed with species B frequently, they ARE considered 3 separate species. That is, if in nature, A and C never breed with each other, they MUST be considered separate species. This is because part of the definition of species IS that the population be of freely interbreeding individuals producing fertile offspring... which is also why there is a different definition of species entirely for bacteria.

You all seem to understand this when it comes to dogs, but then loose your way because you have this need to prove speciation where none exists.

The category "species" is just another category we made to organize the world around us. There isn't even a standard degree of genetic difference between species, so this idea that evolution needs to "demonstrate speciation" is rather funny to me. After all, the genetic change within a population over time that remains the same species can match the degree of genetic change that causing speciation in another. It's also funny because speciation is one of the founding observations of the theory; that is, it was observed before the theory on why it happens was written.

Without your incorrect classifications and your obfuscation about what a species is, your theory would fall apart. They know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Your entire theory rests on a definition you cant even define or stick to from one creature to the next. Its totally useless as an indicator of anything. Thye word species no longer means anything, since anything can be called a species for whatever reason one chooses.

Nah, there is a standard by which species are defined. It's just not a standard real life organisms like to fit.

I mean, I can clearly point to a part of this that is indisputably red, and another that is indisputably orange, but I couldn't tell you the precise point red ends and orange begins. Taxonomy is like trying to categorize every shade of these colors as falling within just 6 categories; obviously, the ones at the borders are disputable. The fact that organisms don't actually fit so easily into our taxonomy system drives people nuts.

An utterly useless designation with no meaning whatsover. This is what you rely on to prove your theory, which makes the theory just as useless.

Pfft, taxonomy is not a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is currently taken into consideration when determining taxonomy, sure, but they aren't a part of each other any more than physics theories about light have anything to do with what names we give colors.

What ambiguity did you not find in spiders interbreeding that you found in finches interbreeding, when the only difference was appearance?

I haven't been following whatever discussion about spiders you've been having, so I'd need a species name to confirm if you claim about the only difference being appearance is true or not.


What keeps biologists from naming dogs as separate species, besides the fact that their ancestory is known and they know to do so would be a joke?[/QUOTE]
It's especially difficult to categorize organisms that rely on us to even exist. There's at least 1 dog breed that can't even reproduce without human intervention anymore. What do you define as "natural reproduction" in a species that is the product of unnatural selective pressures?

What are your scientific reason for calling finches that interbreed separate species.

Assuming you are talking about the Galapagos finches, it's due to breeding behavior and songs. That is, they don't all interbreed, and interbreeding between them is generally infrequent.

I want that reason in your words, what you accept. Then I'll show you you dont really believe what you just claimed. I already know the reason they claim, but I am going to prove to you that you wont accept that very reason as soon as you give it.

-_- why would I even care? I'm well aware of the fact that taxonomy is not perfect, and my personal opinions don't even always match the mainstream when it comes to this. I guess I see a shade everyone puts in the "red" category as more "orange" than most people do, whatever. Sometimes imperfect systems are better than nothing at all, though I personally would prefer a system that functions on the basis of genetic similarity rather than anything to do with breeding. But, uh, that would open up the potential for populations to contain individuals that can't interbreed, which is its own can of worms.

 

[Aman777]

Until you can show him to me, you have no god, only empty claims. Anybody can write anything and anyone can interpret it however they want. Just cut to the chase and provide your god.

You will see Him before the end of Today at the Judgment. Then, you can tell everyone what it's like to stand in front of a man who is brighter than the Sun. His name is Jesus, and He is your Judge. God Bless you

 

[HitchSlap]

You will see Him before the end of Today at the Judgment. Then, you can tell everyone what it's like to stand in front of a man who is brighter than the Sun. His name is Jesus, and He is your Judge. God Bless you

Namaste.

 

[tas8831]

How could I do that any more than you can give me any common ancestor on any evolutionary tree?

Amazing - OK, so we are on equal footing in terms of Created Kind and LCA.

Here is where we diverge:


THE TESTING OF THE METHOD:


Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.






APPLICATION OF THE TESTED METHODS TO EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES OF DESCENT:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

 

[tas8831]

Assuming you are talking about the Galapagos finches, it's due to breeding behavior and songs. That is, they don't all interbreed, and interbreeding between them is generally infrequent.

Indeed - he is fixated on a news report of a paper that indicates widespread hybridization among the finches, though the actual paper that the news story is based on clearly says that this i snot the case for all. He never got that far in his reading.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is the evidence that Adam and eve even existed?

What is the evidence we evolved from bacteria instead? What is the evidence life originated from non-life, when you have only observed life arising from pre-existing life?

I CAN understand that the sections starts off with lists of birds and ends by including bats.

But cant seem to understand the word bird was never used because you didnt bother to do research but thought you had found your coup-de-grace, when you had just found lack of understanding. Nor does it seem could you understand that they were included together because of other criteria, having nothing to do with being the same Kind. If I talked of different dinosaurs that say were plant eaters, would you conclude they were all the same species? No, seems youd figure that out but when the Bible puts unclean animals together you assume they are the same species.....

I know that because this is silly, apologists go to great lengths to try to find ways out of this embarrassment, but it just makes them look even more silly.

The entire thing became silly after you tried to prove the Bible said bats were birds and when corrected decided you couldnt handle that and devolved into stupidity.

Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that the people that wrote the bible were just men from the middle east that had very primitive understandings of the world around them?

Who would understand that Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. And that African mates with African and produces only African. And only when Asian and African mate is a new race brought about. Primitive, perhaps in your eyes, but then scientists for years denounced the Bible because it said rabbits chewed the cud as the Bible told them, until one day someone actually studied them....

I do not want to classify anything as a "Kind". That is YOU.

No, you just want to classify everything as a separate species for any reason one can think up.

I am asking if they are their own kind or not, and since that is your ancient mythological premise, YOU should know.

isn't it funny - you have this 'wait and see' attitude when you cannot address what should be a straightforward issue premised on your beliefs, yet when someone cannot show the bones of the LCA for humans and chimps you cry foul.

Because the only way youll know if they are the same Kind is to start following your own scientific definition of species, which you wont do. But I am not the one claiming some mythical common ancestor magically split into two. Im simply asking you to accept what you observe. That Husky and Mastiff mate and produce the Chinook. Then to apply that to the fossil record.

Creationists are nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical!

Says the one who accepts spiders that were classified as separate species when found to interbreed were reclassified as the same species because they interbreed, but refuse to accept interbreeding finches are the same species.

Oh - and I have to ask if you actually read the paper that you have referred to, you know, the 'DNA evidence' one?
Because if you did, and you actually understood it, you would not be saying that all of the finches are one species, and you would not be saying that hybridization is the only way to get new species.

Which asks me to ignore the scientific definition of species as you do.

Where does the bible say this?

Kind after Kind. It sure doesnt say Kind into other Kind.

It seems that your answers would be, if you had the courage of your convictions to actually answer, totally arbitrary.

Says the man that has ignored every question i asked and gave obfuscating responses......

Why is there a separate ostrich kind? Aren't ostriches birds?

There are many bird Kinds.

Deuteronomy 14:15
"and the ostrich, the owl, the sea gull, and the hawk in their kinds,"

Notice the plural, not that it seems to matter in your desire to be stupid.

One of the other creationists on here claimed that Kind=Species. You boys had ought to get on the same page so you give the same arbitrary and ambiguous answers.

I might define it as such, but then we have already seen you have no definition for species and call whatever you want a species for whatever reason you want. Maybe biologists should get on the same page and you wouldnt have a species problem.....

I don't know what an online evolutionist is, and I parroted nothing about bats=birds - I simply looked it up and provided the quotes from the bible.

But the Bible wasnt written in English. So if a Book was written in Hebrew and translated into English, you would feel no need to look up the Hebrew meaning before challenging a translation? So why do you study biology, there seems to be no need for you to confirm a finding before accepting it as true, just because someone wrote it that way?

But they are flying creatures? Why the arbitrary designations?

Why then are you so upset about someone questioning your arbitrary designation of species?

Not all birds fly, either.

See above, we covered that under ostrich.

Funny - no mention in the bible of penguins, come to think of it.

No mention of lots of animals, but included in all the animals created.

I guess God didn't bother to tell the Israelites about everything. But shouldn't Noah have considered such critters remarkable?

Or being able to navigate the oceans, didnt bring them on the ark like other sea life?

Hmm... such a mystery.

Only to those that are being stupid for no reason.

Wait - I asked if YOU had OBSERVED them - you know, how you ask us if we have 'observed' speciation?

Tell me all about what event you OBSERVED in which a created Kind spawned a subkind.

Are you now also saying that Kind=Species?

Yes, you are, that is YOUR definition:

"Ive given you examples already of a subspecies, or subkind."

No, i said subspecies, in defference to the hope you would follow your own scientific definitions. Follow your scientific definition and tell me what subspecies we have observed coming into being.

Definition of SUBSPECIES
"a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs "

I don't have a definition of subkind, because you've yet to tell us what a Kind is and how you know - according to Leviticus, at least by the idiosyncratic interpretation you employ - apparently Ravens are a Kind, but apparently Vultures and Kites also form a Kind, so what do I know (or care) about the musings of ancient numerologists.

Who knew more about the world than you do. I agree, we shouldnt care about your modern day numerologists calling themselves scientists with their formulas. Oh, that's not what you meant, my bad.

Ive described Kind, go back and look. Not my fault you dont really read.

But I asked about subKind, not subspecies. That you keep trying to turn this around on me is just another example of dishonest creationist tactics.

Until you accept the scientific definition of species and subspecies, Kind and subkind will forever be beyond you.

But now that you have equated Kind with Species, you have really made it very difficult - more difficult than usual - to consider the tale of Noah to be plausible.

There are, after all, MILLIONS of species - an impossible task for 4 inbreeding pairs of elderly people to take care of.

No, there are only millions because they classify species arbitrarily. There is one species of finch, with many subspecies within it. They incorrectly classify the subspecies as species. Just like there is one species of dog, with many subspecies within it.

You are quite capable of understanding over 100 subspecies of dog came from one species of canine, then refuse to accept the obvious when it comes to the rest. Because you dont want to accept it so you wont. instead you will make claims already disproven by the fact over 100 dogs came from one.

You don't seem to understand what 'empirical evidence' is, and no, your repetitious litany of who breeds with who is not evidence, nor is it relevant.

Of course actual observational data is not evidence to an evolutionist. Of course how every animal on this planet mates and new forms arise is irrelevant to an evolutionist. I would expect nothing less than for you to ignore the empirical data in favor of something never once observed.

The hubris of the internet creationist is repulsive.

Not quite as repulsive as yours tho. I dont think you are capable of having a rational discussion without ad hominem attacks, because that is the forte of every evolutionist encountered on any site.

"African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new race seen in the species."


So.... How did we get all this variation from some mythological "created Kind"?

you have been told that too, i suggest you once again go back and read. Since repetition does no good. After all, observational evidence is no evidence to you. So much for what science has become....

 

[tas8831]

What is the evidence we evolved from bacteria instead?

You could have just said "I don't know."

Not quite as repulsive as yours tho. I dont think you are capable of having a rational discussion without ad hominem attacks, because that is the forte of every evolutionist encountered on any site.

As is so often the case, it seems that creationists share (or educate by example) these fake martyr-escape techniques amongst each other to avoid tough spots.

Problem is, they do not seem to understand what any of the accusations they hurl mean.

Ad Hominem:

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.​

It is not irrelevant to point out one's lack of knowledge on a subject that they are discussing, especially when that person starts the conversation or brings up the topic and can easily be shown to be wrong - and even more especially when their errors and misunderstandings have been demonstrated and explained, sometimes repeatedly.

That you did not know, for example, what an 'allele' was (or how to spell it) until a few hours ago, despite 'discussing' the subject of genetics for months or years is RELEVANT, since it was part of your argument.

That you think the 'DNA evidence' points to all Galapagos finches being one species and that this is not the case based even on the article you referred to is RELEVANT.

That you claim that a biblical 'Kind' = species is RELEVANT to the veracity of your grasp of the subject matter and its implications.

I wish creationists would grow some humility and man-up instead of trying to set up some kind of self-pity, martyr-fest.

 

[xianghua]

They EXACTLY Evolve from a molecule... DNA is a Molecule! Cars don't grow, they're manufactured. but Sure, Show me a car that grows from a strand of DNA.

in automatic factory cars also evolving from tiny parts. so according to this criteria cars are also the product of a natural process.

 

[xianghua]

Because we do see species evolving including the evolution of new species in nature.

but new species is just a variation. it's still belong to the same family and basically it's the same creature. so it's not evidence for evolution.